On 17.10.2010, at 23.49, Brandon Davidson wrote: > Eventually I'd like to see it using RFC5819 LIST-EXTENDED, but that requires > a fair bit of work. In the mean time I'm trying to speed up the existing > iteration. I've got it working using 'STATUS "mailbox" (UNSEEN)', but the > language in RFC3501 suggest that this may be slow. There is a > counterproposal to use RFC4731 ESEARCH and do 'SELECT "MAILBOX"'; 'SEARCH > RETURN (COUNT) UNSEEN'.
The reason why STATUS is mentioned to be possibly slow is to discourage clients from doing a STATUS to all mailboxes. >> From an IMAP server perspective, which do you anticipate would be faster? >> From a client perspective it seems like STATUS would be better since it > involves less round-trips to the server and less output parsing, but given > the warnings in the RFCs there is concern that it is in fact be more > expensive. STATUS is definitely faster than SELECT+SEARCH with all IMAP servers.
